Forensic Linguistics in Australia: Origins, Progress and Prospects

Diana Eades; Helen Fraser; Georgina Heydon

doi:10.1017/9781009168090

Series: Elements in Forensic Linguistics

Forensic Linguistics in Australia

Origins, Progress and Prospects

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 May 2023

Diana Eades ,

Helen Fraser and

Georgina Heydon

Show author details

Diana Eades: Affiliation:
University of New England, Maine
Helen Fraser: Affiliation:
University of Melbourne and University of New England, Maine
Georgina Heydon: Affiliation:
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

Summary

This Element presents an account of forensic linguistics in Australia since the first expert linguistic evidence in 1959, through early work in the 1970s-1980s, the defining of the discipline in the 1990s, and into the current era. It starts with a consideration of some widespread misconceptions about language that affect the field and some problematic ideologies in the law, which underly much of the discussion throughout the Element. The authors' report of forensic linguists' work is structured in terms of the linguistic, interactional and sociocultural contexts of the language data being analysed, whether in expert evidence, in research, or in practical applications of linguistics in a range of legal settings. The Element concludes by highlighting mutual engagement between forensic linguistic practitioners and both the judiciary and legal scholars, and outlines some of the key factors which support a critical forensic linguistics approach in much of the work in the authors' country.

Element contents

Summary
References

Get access

Keywords

language and the law forensic linguistics Australian linguistics applied linguistics language and justice

Information

Type: Element
Information: Series: Elements in Forensic Linguistics

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009168090 [Opens in a new window]

Online ISBN: 9781009168090

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication: 22 June 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Element purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aboriginal Resource and Development Services (ARDS). (2008). An Absence of Mutual Respect: Bäyŋu Ŋayaŋu-Ḏapmaranhamirr Rom ga Ŋorra. https://ards.com.au/resources/downloadable/an-absence-of-mutual-respect-b%C3%A4y%C5%8Bu-%C5%8Baya%C5%8Bu-%E1%B8%8Fapmaranhamirr-rom-ga-%C5%8Borra/.Google Scholar

Aboriginal Resource and Development Services (ARDS). (2015). Dhuwal Wäyukpuy: Rom Dhäruk Mala ga Mayali‘ [Legal Dictionary Djambarrpuyngu]. www.ards.com.au/resources-2/p/legal-dictionary-djambarrpuyngu.Google Scholar

Aboriginal Resource and Development Services (ARDS), North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency (NAAJA), & Aboriginal Interpreter Service, Northern Territory Government (AIS). (2015). The Plain English Legal Dictionary: Northern Territory Criminal Law. A Resource for Judicial Officers, Aboriginal Interpreters and Legal Professionals Working with Speakers of Aboriginal Languages. https://ards.com.au/uploads/Downloads/15/39-15.Legal_Dictionary_plain_English_version.pdf.Google Scholar

Adam, L., & van Golde, C. (2020). Police practice and false confessions: A search for the implementation of investigative interviewing in Australia. Alternative Law Journal, 45(1), 52–9.Google Scholar

Alderman, T. (2005). Forensic Speaker Identification: A Likelihood Ratio-based Approach Using Vowel Formants. Munich: Lincom GmBH.Google Scholar

AUSIT (Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators). (2012). AUSIT Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct. https://ausit.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Code_Of_Ethics_Full.pdf.Google Scholar

Baldwin, J. R., & French, P. (1990). Forensic Phonetics. London: Pinter.Google Scholar

Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bowden, P., Henning, T., & Plater, D. (2014). Balancing fairness to victims, society and defendants in the cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses: An impossible triangulation? Melbourne University Law Review, 37, 539–84.Google Scholar

Bowe, H., & Storey, K. (1995). Linguistic analysis as evidence of speaker identification: Demand and response. In Eades, ed., pp. 187–200.Google Scholar

Bowen, A. (2019). ‘You don’t have to say anything’: Modality and consequences in conversations about the right to silence in the Northern Territory. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 39(3), 347–74.Google Scholar

Bowen, A. (2021a). Explaining the right to silence under Anunga: 40 years of a policy about language. Griffith Law Review, 30(1), 18–49.Google Scholar

Bowen, A. (2021b). Intercultural translation of vague legal language: The right to silence in the Northern Territory of Australia. Target: International Journal of Translation Studies, 33(2), 308–40.Google Scholar

Bowen, A. (2021c). Supporting two-way communication with police in Western Australia: New translation app helps to identify need for Aboriginal interpreters. Brandeis University. Language, Culture and Justice Hub. Spotlight. www.brandeis.edu/ethics/international-justice/language-culture-justice/spotlight-oct-2021.html.Google Scholar

Bowen, A., & Eades, D. (2022). Forensic linguistics and pseudoscience: How to recognise the difference. Precedent, 172, 35–9.Google Scholar

Brennan, G. (1979). The Need for Interpreting and Translation Services for Australian Aboriginals, with Special Reference to the Northern Territory: A Research Report. Canberra: Department of Aboriginal Affairs.Google Scholar

Brennan, M. (1995). The discourse of denial: Cross-examining child victim witnesses. Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 71–91.CrossRef Google Scholar

Brennan, M., & Brennan, R. (1988). Strange Language: Child Victims under Cross-Examination, 2nd ed. Wagga Wagga: Charles Sturt University.Google Scholar

Candlin, C., & Maley, Y. (1997). Intertextuality and interdiscursivity in the discourse of alternative dispute resolution. In Gunnarson, B.-L., Linell, P. & Nordberg, B., eds., The Construction of Professional Discourse. London: Longman, pp. 200–22.Google Scholar

Chan, R. (2020). The empirical psychological science behind ad hoc expert voice identification evidence. University of Tasmania Law Review, 39(1), 23–38.Google Scholar

Communication of Rights Group (CoRG). (2015). Guidelines for Communication of Rights to Non-native Speakers of English. www.aaal.org/guidelines-for-communication-rights.Google Scholar

Conley, J. M., O’Barr, W. M., & Conley Riner, R. (2019). Just Words: Law, Language, and Power, 3rd ed. London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cooke, M. (1995a). Aboriginal evidence in the cross-cultural courtroom. In Eades, ed., pp. 55–96.Google Scholar

Cooke, M. (1995b). Understood by all concerned? Anglo/Aboriginal legal translation. In Morris, M., ed., Translation and the Law. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 37–66.Google Scholar

Cooke, M. (1996). A different story: Narrative versus ‘question and answer’ in Aboriginal evidence. Forensic Linguistics, 3(2), 273–88.Google Scholar

Cooke, M. (2002). Indigenous Interpreting Issues for the Courts. Carlton: Australian Institute of Judicial Administration.Google Scholar

Cooke, M. (2004). Caught in the Middle: Indigenous Interpreters and Customary Law. Background Paper No. 2. Law Reform Commission of Western Australia. www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/.Google Scholar

Cooke, M. (2009). Anglo/Aboriginal communication in the criminal justice process: A collective responsibility. Journal of Judicial Administration, 19(1), 26–35.Google Scholar

Coulthard, M., May, A., & Sousa-Silva, R. (eds.). (2020). The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Criminal Justice Commission (CJC). (1996). Aboriginal Witnesses in Queensland’s Criminal Courts. Brisbane: Criminal Justice Commission.Google Scholar

Deamer, F., Fraser, H., Haworth, K. et al. (eds.). (2022). Capturing Talk: The Institutional Practices Surrounding the Transcription of Spoken Language. Frontiers in Communication. www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/19744/capturing-talk-the-institutional-practices-surrounding-the-transcription-of-spoken-language.Google Scholar

Dieckmann, C., & Rojas-Lizana, I. (2016). The pragmatics of legal advice services in a community legal centre in Australia: Domination or facilitation? International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 23(2), 167–93.Google Scholar

Dodson, M. (1995). From ‘lore’ to ‘law’: Indigenous rights and Australian legal systems. Aboriginal Law Bulletin, 72(3), 1–3.Google Scholar

Eades, D. (1992). Aboriginal English and the Law: Communicating with Aboriginal English Speaking Clients: A Handbook for Legal Practitioners. Brisbane: Queensland Law Society.Google Scholar

Eades, D. (1993). The case for Condren: Aboriginal English, pragmatics and the law. Journal of Pragmatics, 20(2), 141–62.Google Scholar

Eades, D. (1994). Forensic linguistics in Australia: An overview. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 1(2), 113–32.Google Scholar

Eades, D. (ed.). (1995). Language in Evidence: Issues Confronting Aboriginal and Multicultural Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.Google Scholar

Eades, D. (2000). ‘I don’t think it’s an answer to the question’: Silencing Aboriginal witnesses in court. Language in Society, 29(2), 161–96.Google Scholar

Eades, D. (2003). ‘I don’t think the lawyers were communicating with me’: Misunderstanding cultural differences in communicative style. Emory Law Journal, 52, 1109–34.Google Scholar

Eades, D. (2005). Applied linguistics and language analysis in asylum seeker cases. Applied Linguistics, 26(4), 503–26.CrossRef Google Scholar

Eades, D. (2008a). Courtroom Talk and Neocolonial Control. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Eades, D. (2008b). Telling and retelling your story in court: Questions, assumptions and intercultural implications. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 20(2), 209–30.Google Scholar

Eades, D. (2009). Testing the claims of asylum seekers: The role of language analysis. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6(1), 30–40.Google Scholar

Eades, D. (2010). Sociolinguistics and the Legal Process. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRef Google Scholar

Eades, D. (2012). The social consequences of language ideologies in courtroom cross examination. Language in Society, 41(4), 471–97.Google Scholar

Eades, D. (2013). Aboriginal Ways of Using English. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.Google Scholar

Eades, D. (2016a). Judicial understandings of Aboriginality and language use. The Judicial Review, 12, 471–90.Google Scholar

Eades, D. (2016b). Theorising language in sociolinguistics and the law: (How) can sociolinguistics have an impact on inequality in the criminal justice process? In Coupland, N., ed., Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 367–89.Google Scholar

Eades, D. (2018). Communicating the right to silence to Aboriginal suspects: Lessons from Western Australia v Gibson. Journal of Judicial Administration, 28, 4–21.Google Scholar

Eades, D., & Arends, J. (2004). (eds.). Special section: Language analysis and determination of nationality. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 11(2), 179–266.Google Scholar

Eades, D., Fraser, H., Siegel, J., McNamara, T., & Baker, B. (2003). Linguistic identification in the determination of nationality: A preliminary report. Language Policy, 2(2), 179–99.Google Scholar

Eades, D., & Pavlenko, A. (2016). Translating research into policy: New guidelines for communicating rights to non-native speakers. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito, 3(2), 45–64.Google Scholar

Eagleson, R. (1990). Writing in Plain English. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar

Eagleson, R. (1994). Forensic analysis of written personal texts: A case study. In Gibbons, ed., pp. 362–73.Google Scholar

Ehrlich, S. (2012). Text trajectories, legal discourse and gendered inequalities. Applied Linguistics Review, 3, 47–73.Google Scholar

Ehrlich, S., & Eades, D. (2016). Introduction: Linguistic and discursive dimensions of consent. In Ehrlich, Eades & Ainsworth, eds., pp. 1–20.Google Scholar

Ehrlich, S., Eades, D., & Ainsworth, J., eds. (2016) Discursive Constructions of Consent in the Legal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Evans, N. (2002). Country and the Word: Linguistic evidence in the Croker sea claim. In Henderson, J. & Nash, D., eds., Language in Native Title. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, pp. 53–100.Google Scholar

Findling, J., & Heydon, G. (2016) Questioning the evidence: A case for best-practice models of interviewing in the Refugee Review Tribunal. Journal of Judicial Administration, 26(4), 19–30.Google Scholar

Ford, W. K., & Mertz, E. (2016). Introduction: Translating law and social science. In Mertz, Ford & Matoesian, eds., pp. 1–26.Google Scholar

Fraser, H. (2009). The role of ‘educated native speakers’ in providing language analysis for the determination of the origin of asylum seekers. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 16(1), 113–38.Google Scholar

Fraser, H. (2011). The role of linguists and native speakers in language analysis for the determination of speaker origin: A response to Tina Cambier-Langeveld. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 18(1), 121–30.Google Scholar

Fraser, H. (2012). Bayes and beyond: The complex challenges of LADO and their relevance to forensic speaker comparison. In Donohue, C., Ishihara, S., & Steed, W., eds., Quantitative Approaches to Problems in Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Phil Rose. Munich: LINCOM Europa, pp. 215–22.Google Scholar

Fraser, H. (2013). Covert recordings as evidence in court: The return of police ‘verballing’? The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/covert-recordings-as-evidence-in-court-the-return-of-police-verballing-14072.Google Scholar

Fraser, H. (2018). Forensic transcription: How confident false beliefs about language and speech threaten the right to a fair trial in Australia. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 38(4), 586–606.Google Scholar

Fraser, H. (2019). The role of native speakers in LADO: Are we missing a more important question? In Patrick, Schmid & Zwaan (eds)., pp. 71–89.Google Scholar

Fraser, H. (2020a). Introducing the research hub for language in forensic evidence. Judicial Officers’ Bulletin, 32(11), 117–8.Google Scholar

Fraser, H. (2020b). Forensic transcription: The case for transcription as a dedicated area of linguistic science. In Coulthard, May, & Sousa-Silva, eds., pp. 416–31.Google Scholar

Fraser, H. (2021). The development of legal procedures for using a transcript to assist the jury in understanding indistinct covert recordings used as evidence in Australian criminal trials: A history in three key cases. Language and Law / Linguagem e Direito, 8(1), 59–75.Google Scholar

Fraser, H. (2022a). A framework for deciding how to create and evaluate transcripts for forensic and other purposes. Frontiers in Communication, 7, 898410.Google Scholar

Fraser, H. (2022b). Forensic transcription: Legal and scientific perspectives. In Bernardasci, C., Dipino, D., Garassino, D. et al., eds., Speaker Individuality in Phonetics and Speech Sciences: Speech Technology and Forensic Applications. Milano: Officinaventuno, pp. 19–32.Google Scholar

Fraser, H., & Kinoshita, Y. (2021). Injustice arising from the unnoticed power of priming: How lawyers and even judges can be misled by unreliable transcripts of indistinct forensic audio. Criminal Law Journal, 45(3), 142–52.Google Scholar

Fraser, H., & Loakes, D. (2020). Acoustic injustice: The experience of listening to indistinct covert recordings presented as evidence in court. Law Text Culture, 24, 405–29.Google Scholar

Fraser, H., & Stevenson, B. (2014). The power and persistence of contextual priming: More risks in using police transcripts to aid jurors’ perception of poor quality covert recordings. The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 18(3), 205–29.Google Scholar

Freckelton, I., & Selby, H. (eds.). (2019). Expert Evidence, 6th ed., Sydney: Lawbook.Google Scholar

French, P. (2017). Developmental history of forensic speaker comparison in the UK. English Phonetics, 16(1), 271–86.Google Scholar

French, P., & Fraser, H. (2018). Why ‘ad hoc experts’ should not provide transcripts of indistinct forensic audio, and a proposal for a better approach. Criminal Law Journal, 42, 298–302.Google Scholar

Fryer-Smith, S. (2008). Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Benchbook for Western Australian Courts, 2nd ed., Perth: Australian Institute of Judicial Administration.Google Scholar

Gaykamangu, J. G. (2012). Ngarra law: Aboriginal customary law from Arnhem Land. Northern Territory Law Journal, 2, 236–48.Google Scholar

Gibbons, J. (1990). Applied linguistics in court. Applied Linguistics, 11(3), 229–37.Google Scholar

Gibbons, J. (ed.). (1994). Language and the Law, London: Longman.Google Scholar

Gibbons, J. (1995). What got lost?: The place of electronic recording and interpreting in police interviews. In Eades, ed., pp. 175–86.Google Scholar

Gibbons, J. (2001). Revising the language of New South Wales police procedures: Applied Linguistics in action. Applied Linguistics, 22(4), 439–69.Google Scholar

Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic Linguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Gibbons, J. (2017). Towards clearer jury instructions. Language and Law / Linguagem e Direito, 4(1), 142–60.Google Scholar

Granhag, P. A., Vrij, A., & Verschuere, B. (2015). Detecting Deception: Current Challenges and Cognitive Approaches. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Goddard, C. (1996). Can linguists help judges know what they mean? Linguistic semantics in the courtroom. Forensic Linguistics, 3(2), 250-72.Google Scholar

Gray, P. R. A. (2000). Do the walls have ears? Indigenous title and courts in Australia. International Journal of Legal Information, 28, 185–211.Google Scholar

Gray, P. R. A. (2011). The expert witness problem. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 17(2), 201–9.Google Scholar

Gray, P. R. A. (2021). Aboriginal claimants: Adjusting legal procedures to accommodate linguistic and cultural issues in hearings in Aboriginal land rights claims in the Northern Territory of Australia. In Coulthard, May & Sousa-Silva, eds., pp. 329–43.Google Scholar

Gray, P. R. A. (2022/2023). Gratuitous concurrence: When ‘yes’ might not mean ‘I agree’. Victorian Bar News, 172, 81–2.Google Scholar

Grey, A. (2021). Language Rights in a Changing China: A National Overview and Zhuang Case Study. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Grey, A., & Smith-Khan, L. (2021). Bringing linguistic research into legal scholarship and practice. Alternative Law Journal, 46(1), 64–70.Google Scholar

Grey, A., & Severin, A. (2022). Building towards best practice for governments’ public communications in languages other than English: a case study of New South Wales, Australia. Griffith Law Review, 31(1), 25–56.Google Scholar

Hale, S. (2004). The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse Practices of the Law, the Witness and the Interpreter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Hale, S. (2011). Interpreter Policies, Practices and Protocols in Australian Courts and Tribunals – A National Survey, Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration, Melbourne, 89, www.aija.org.au/online/Pub%20no89.pdf.Google Scholar

Hale, S. (2013). Helping interpreters to truly and faithfully interpret the evidence: The importance of briefing and preparation materials. Australian Bar Review, 37, 307–20.Google Scholar

Hale, S., Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Martschuk, N. (2019). Interpreter performance in police interviews: Differences between trained professional interpreters and untrained bilinguals. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 13(2), 107–131.Google Scholar

Hale, S., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N., & Lim, J. (2022). Does interpreter location make a difference? A study of remote vs face-to-face interpreting in simulated police interviews. Interpreting: International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting, 24(2), 221–53.Google Scholar

Hale, S., Martschuk, N., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Taibi, M., & Xu, H. (2020). Interpreting profanity in police interviews. Multilingua, 39, 369–93.Google Scholar

Hale, S., Martschuk, N., Ozolins, U., & Stern, L. (2017). The effect of interpreting modes on witness credibility assessments. Interpreting, 19(1), 69–96.Google Scholar

Hale, S., & Stern, L. (2011). Interpreter quality and working conditions: Comparing Australian and international courts of justice. Judicial Officers Bulletin, 23(9), 75–9.Google Scholar

Hale, S., San Roque, M., Spencer, D., & Napier, J. (2017). Deaf citizens as jurors in Australian courts: Participating via professional interpreters. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 24(2), 151–76.Google Scholar

Hall, M. C., & Collins, A. M. (1980). The admission of spectrographic evidence: A note on Reg. v. Gilmore. Australian Law Journal, 54, 21–4.Google Scholar

Hammarström, G. (1987). Voice Identification. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 19(3), 95–9.Google Scholar

Haworth, K. J. (2018). Tapes, transcripts and trials. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 22(4), 428–50.Google Scholar

Heydon, G. (1998). Participation frameworks, discourse features and embedded requests in police V.A.T.E. interviews with children. Monash University Linguistics Papers, 1 (2), 21–32.Google Scholar

Heydon, G. (2005). The Language of Police Interviewing. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Heydon, G. (2007). When silence means acceptance: Understanding the right to silence as a linguistic phenomenon. Alternative Law Journal, 32(3), 147–51.Google Scholar

Heydon, G. (2008a). The importance of being (in)formal: Discourse strategies in police interviews with children. In Kredens, K. & Gozdz-Roszkowski, S., eds., Language and the Law: International Outlooks. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 279–303.Google Scholar

Heydon, G. (2008b). The art of deception: Myths about lie detection in written confessions. In Smets, L. & Vrij, A., eds., Cahiers Police Studies: Het Analyseren van de Geloofwaardigheid van Verhoren: Het Gebruik van Leugendetectiemethoden. [The analysis of the credibility of interrogations: The use of lie detection methods] Gent: Politeia, pp. 173–86.Google Scholar

Heydon, G. (2012). Helping the police with their enquiries: Enhancing the investigative interview with linguistic research. The Police Journal, 85(2), 101–22.Google Scholar

Heydon, G. (2019). Researching Forensic Linguistics: Approaches and Applications. Milton Park: Routledge.CrossRef Google Scholar

Heydon, G., & Lai, M. (2013). Police interviews mediated by interpreters: An exercise in diminishment? Investigative Interviewing: Research and Practice, 5(2), 82–98.Google Scholar

Heydon, G., & Mabasso, E. (2018). How are language challenges in domestic violence reporting understood by justice stakeholders in Mozambique? Language Matters, 49 (1), 84–106.Google Scholar

Heydon, G., & Powell, A. (2018) Written response interview protocols: An innovative approach to confidential reporting and victim interviewing in sexual assault investigations. Policing and Society, 28(6), 631–46.Google Scholar

Hudson, T., McDougall, K., & Hughes, V. (2021). Forensic phonetics. In Knight, R.-A. & Setter, J., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 631–56.Google Scholar

Ingram, J., Prandolini, R., & Ong, S. (1996). Formant trajectories as indices of phonetic variation for speaker identification. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 3(1), 129–45.Google Scholar

Ishihara, S. (2014). A likelihood ratio-based evaluation of strength of authorship attribution evidence in SMS messages using N-grams. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 21(1), 23–49.Google Scholar

Ishihara, S. (2017). Strength of forensic text comparison evidence from stylometric features: A multivariate likelihood ratio-based analysis. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 24(1), 67–98.Google Scholar

Jensen, M.-T. (1995). Linguistic evidence accepted in the case of a non-native speaker of English. In Eades, ed., pp. 127–46.Google Scholar

Jones, A. (1994). The limitations of voice identification. In Gibbons, ed., pp. 346–61.Google Scholar

Judicial Commission of New South Wales. (2022). 21^st update, Equality before the Law Benchbook. Sydney: Judicial Commission of New South Wales.Google Scholar

Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity (JCCD). (2022). Recommended National Standards for Interpreting in Courts and Tribunals, 2nd ed., https://jccd.org.au/publications/.Google Scholar

Kinoshita, Y., & Ishihara, S. (2015). Background population: How does it affect LR based forensic voice comparison? International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 21(2), 191–224.Google Scholar

Koch, H. (1985). Nonstandard English in an Aboriginal land claim. In Pride, J., ed., Cross-cultural Encounters: Communication and Miscommunication. Melbourne: River Seine Publications, pp. 176–95.Google Scholar

Koehler, J. J. (2013). Linguistic confusion in court: Evidence from the forensic sciences. Journal of Law and Policy, 21(2), 515–39.Google Scholar

Kreiman, J. & Sidtis, D. (2011). Foundations of Voice Studies: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Voice Production and Perception. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar

La Rooy, D., Heydon, G., Korkman, J., & Myklebust, T. (2015). Interviewing child witnesses. In Oxburgh, G., Myklebust, T., Grant, T. & Milne, R., eds., Communication in Investigative and Legal contexts: Integrated Approaches from Forensic Psychology, Linguistics and Law Enforcement. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 57–78.Google Scholar

Lai, M., & Mulayim, S. (2014). Interpreter linguistic intervention in the strategies employed by police in investigative interviews. Police Practice and Research, 15(4), 307–21.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. H. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Langford, I. (2000). Forensic semantics: The meaning of murder, manslaughter and homicide. Forensic Linguistics, 7(1), 72–94.Google Scholar

Language and National Origin Group (2004). Guidelines for the use of language analysis in relation to questions of national origin in refugee cases. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 11(2), 261–66.Google Scholar

Law Society of South Australia (2020). Lawyers’ Protocols for Dealing with Aboriginal Clients in South Australia. www.lawsocietysa.asn.au/Public/Publications/Resources_Hub.aspx.Google Scholar

Law Society of the Northern Territory (2015). Indigenous Protocols for Lawyers in the Northern Territory, 2nd ed. Darwin. Law Society Northern Territory. www.lawsocnt.asn.au/fmi/xsl/lsnt/lsnt_publications.xsl.Google Scholar

Lee, J. (2009). Interpreting inexplicit language during courtroom examination. Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 93–114.Google Scholar

Liddicoat, A., & Haugh, M. (eds.). (2009). Conceptualising Communication. Special issue of Australian Journal of Linguistics 29(1).Google Scholar

Lo Bianco, J. (1987). National Policy on Languages. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar

Loakes, D. (2008). A forensic phonetic investigation into the speech patterns of identical and non-identical twins. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 15(1), 97–100.Google Scholar

Loakes, D., & McDougall, K. (2010). Individual variation in the frication of voiceless plosives in Australian English: A study of twins. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 30(2), 155–81.Google Scholar

Loakes, D., Clothier, J., Hajek, J., & Fletcher, J. (2014). An investigation of the /el/–/æl/ merger in Australian English: A pilot study on production and perception in South-West Victoria. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 34(4), 436–52.Google Scholar

Loney-Howes, R., & Heydon, G. (2018). Reporting sexual assault anonymously: an analysis of the Sexual Assault Reporting Anonymous (SARA) mobile application and website: 2013-2016. South Eastern Centre Against Sexual Assault (unpublished).Google Scholar

Loney-Howes, R., Heydon, G., & O’Neill, T. (2021). Connecting survivors to therapeutic support and criminal justice through informal reporting options: An analysis of sexual violence reports made to a digital reporting tool in Australia. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 34 (1), 20–37.Google Scholar

Luchjenbroers, J. (1997). ‘In your own words…’: Questions and answers in a Supreme Court trial. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 477–503.Google Scholar

Mabasso, E. (2019). Tell us the story in your Portuguese: We can understand you. In Ralarala, M., Kaschula, R. & Heydon, G., eds., New Frontiers in Forensic Linguistics: Themes and Perspectives in Language and Law in Africa and Beyond. Stellenbosch: African Sun Press, pp. 33–48.Google Scholar

MacFarlane, J., Kurt, C., Heydon, G., & Roh, A. (2019) ‘Like giving a wheelchair to someone who should be walking’: Interpreter access and the problematisation of linguistic diversity in the justice system. In M. Ralarala, R. Kaschula & G. Heydon, eds., New Frontiers in Forensic Linguistics. Stellenbosch: African Sun Press pp. 51–70.Google Scholar

Markham, D. (1999). Listeners and disguised voices: The imitation and perception of dialectal accent. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 6(2), 290–99.Google Scholar

Maley, Y. (1994). The language of the law. In Gibbons, ed., pp. 11–50.Google Scholar

Maley, Y. (2000). The case of the long-nosed potoroo: The framing and construction of expert witness testimony. In Sarangi, S. & Coulthard, M., eds., Discourse and Social Life. Essex: Pearson Education, pp. 246–69.Google Scholar

Matoesian, G. (2001). Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Matoesian, G. (2016). Translating token instances of “this” into type patterns of “that”: The discursive and multimodal translation of evidence into precedent. In Mertz, Ford & Matoesian, eds., pp. 55–84.Google Scholar

McGorrery, P. G., & McMahon, M. (2016). A fair ‘hearing’: Earwitness identifications and voice identification parades. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 21(3), 262–86.Google Scholar

McKay, G. (1985). Language issues in training programs for Northern Territory police: A linguist’s view. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Series S, 2, 32–43.Google Scholar

Mertz, E., Ford, W. K., & Matoesian, G. (eds.). (2016), Translating the Social World for Law: Linguistic Tools for a New Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press,Google Scholar

Methven, E. (2018). A little respect: Swearing, police and criminal justice discourse. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 7(3), 58–74.Google Scholar

Mildren, D. (1997). Redressing the imbalance: Aboriginals in the criminal justice system. Criminal Law Journal, 21(1), 7–22.Google Scholar

Mildren, D. (1999). Redressing the imbalance: Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system. Forensic Linguistics, 6(1), 137–60.Google Scholar

Mildren, D. (2012). Indigenous Australians and the criminal justice system. Paper Presented to the Uluru Criminal Lawyers Conference, August. https://supremecourt.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/727067/indigenous-australians-and-the-criminal-justice-system-criminal-law-conference-uluru.pdf Google Scholar

Milne, B. & Bull, R. (1999). Investigative Interviewing: Psychology and Practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Moore, D. (2022). Closing the gap in legal communication: The challenges of interpreting Indigenous languages in Central Australian courts. In Wakabayashi, J. & O’Hagan, M., eds., Translating and Interpreting in Australia and New Zealand: Distance and Diversity. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 23–43.Google Scholar

Morphy, F. (2007). Performing law: The Yolgnu of Blue Mud Bay meet the native title process. In Smith, B. & Morphy, F., eds., The Social Effects of Native Title: Recognition, Translation, Coexistence. Canberra: ANU E Press, pp. 31–57.Google Scholar

Morrison, G. S., Enzinger, E., Hughes, V., et al. (2021). Consensus on validation of forensic voice comparison. Science & Justice, 61(3), 299–309.Google Scholar

Mulayim, S., Lai, M., & Norma, C. (2015). Police Investigative Interviews and Interpreting: Context, Challenges, and Strategies. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar

Muniroh, D., Findling, J., & Heydon, G. (2018). What’s in a question: A case for a culturally appropriate interviewing protocol in the Australian Refugee Review Tribunal. In I. Nick, ed., Immigrants, Refugees, Asylum-Seekers, and Forensic Linguistics. Delaware, USA: Vernon Press, pp. 133–54.Google Scholar

Muniroh, R., & Heydon, G. (2022). Addressing the gap between principles and practices in police interviewing in Indonesia. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 37(2), 312–24.Google Scholar

Nakane, I. (2007). Problems in communicating the suspect’s rights in interpreted police interviews. Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 87–112.Google Scholar

Nakane, I. (2014). Interpreter Mediated Police Interviews: A Discourse-Pragmatic Approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Nakane, I. (2020). Courtroom discourse of the ‘hybrid’ Japanese criminal justice system. Journal of Asian Linguistic Anthropology, 1(1), 110–35.Google Scholar

Napier, J., Spencer, D., Hale, S., et al. (2019). Changing the international justice landscape: Perspectives on deaf citizenship and jury service. Sign Language Studies, 19(2), 240–66.Google Scholar

Napier, J., Spencer, D. & Sabolcec, J. (2007). Deaf Juror’s Access to Court Proceedings via Sign Language Interpreting: An Investigation, NSW Law Reform Commission Research Report No 14.Google Scholar

Nash, D. (1979). Foreigners in their own land: Aborigines in court. Legal Service Bulletin, 4(3), 105–7.Google Scholar

New South Wales Legislative Council Standing Committee on Law and Justice Inquiry. (2014). Family Response to the Murders in Bowraville. Report 55. www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/inquiries/2131/Bowraville%20-%20Final%20report.pdf Google Scholar

Nolan, F. (1983). The Phonetic Bases of Speaker Recognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Olson, D. R. (1994). The World on Paper: The Conceptual and Cognitive Implications of Writing and Reading. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Patrick, P. L., Schmid, M. S., & Zwaan, K. (eds.). (2019). Language Analysis for the Determination of Origin: Current Perspectives and New Directions. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar

Porter, S., & Ten Brinke, L. (2009). Dangerous decisions: A theoretical framework for understanding how judges assess credibility in the courtroom. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14(1), 119–34.Google Scholar

Queensland Supreme Court (2016). Equal Treatment Benchbook, 2nd ed., www.courts.qld.gov.au/court-users/practitioners/benchbooks.Google Scholar

Ralarala, M. K. (2016). An analysis of critical ‘voices’ and ‘styles’ in transpreters’ translations of complainants’ narratives. Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts, 2(1), 142–66.Google Scholar

Remedy Australia (2021). Advancing jury inclusivity in Australia. www.remedy.org.au/reports/RemedyAustralia_on_inclusive_juries_2021.pdf.Google Scholar

Robertson, B., Vignaux, G., & Berger, C. (2016). Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar

Rock, F. (2007). Communicating Rights: The Language of Arrest and Detention. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Rose, P. (2002). Forensic Speaker Identification. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar

Rose, P. (2013). Where the science ends and the law begins: Likelihood ratio-based forensic voice comparison in a $150 million telephone fraud. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 20(2), 275–322.Google Scholar

Rose, P., & Duncan, S. (1995). Naive auditory identification and discrimination of similar voices by familiar listeners. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 2(1), 1–17.Google Scholar

Rose, P., & Morrison, G. (2009). A response to the UK position statement on forensic speaker comparison. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 16(1), 139–63.Google Scholar

Rusho, D. (2021). Cross-currents: Indigenous language interpreting in Australia’s justice system. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 28(2), 281–8.Google Scholar

Smith-Khan, L. (2017). Different in the same way?: Language, diversity and refugee credibility. International Journal of Refugee Law, 29(3), 389–416.Google Scholar

Smith-Khan, L. (2019a). Communicative resources and credibility in public discourse on refugees. Language in Society, 48(3), 403–27.Google Scholar

Smith-Khan, L. (2019b). Why refugee visa credibility assessments lack credibility: A critical discourse analysis. Griffith Law Review, 28(4), 406–30.Google Scholar

Smith-Khan, L. (2022). Incorporating sociolinguistic perspectives in Australian refugee credibility assessments: The case of CRL18. Journal of International Migration and Integration, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-022-00937-2.Google Scholar

Snow, P. C., & Powell, M. B. (2005). What‘s the story? An exploration of narrative language abilities in male juvenile offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11(3), 239–53.Google Scholar

Solan, L. (1998). Linguistic experts as semantic tour guides. Forensic Linguistics, 5(2), 87–106.Google Scholar

Stern, L. (2001). At the junction of cultures - Interpreting at the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the light of other international interpreting practices. Judicial Review, 5(3), 255–74.Google Scholar

Stroud, N. (2010). The Koori Court revisited: Review of cultural and language awareness in the administration of justice. Australian Law Librarian, 18(3), 184–92.Google Scholar

Svartvik, J. (1968). The Evans Statements, A Case for Forensic Linguistics. Göteborg: University of Göteborg.Google Scholar

Tiersma, P. (2000). The rocky road to legal reform: Improving the language of jury instructions. Brooklyn Law Review, 66, 1081–119.Google Scholar

Tresize, P. (1996). Use of language and the Anunga rules. Aboriginal Law Bulletin, 3(79), 17–8.Google Scholar

Trinch, S. (2003). Latinas’ Narratives of Domestic Abuse: Discrepant Versions of Violence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Victorian Law Reform Commission. (2017). Plain English and the Law, 2nd ed., Melbourne: Victorian Law Reform Commission.Google Scholar

Walsh, M. (1994). Interactional styles in the courtroom: An example from northern Australia. In Gibbons, ed., pp. 217–33.Google Scholar

Walsh, M. (1995). Tainted evidence: Literacy and traditional knowledge in an Aboriginal land claim. In Eades, ed., pp. 97–124.Google Scholar

Walsh, M. (2008). ‘Which way?’ Difficult options for vulnerable witnesses in Australian Aboriginal land claim and native title cases. Journal of English Linguistics, 36(3), 239–65.Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Reasonable man and Reasonable doubt: The English language, Anglo culture and Anglo-American law. Forensic Linguistics, 10(1), 1–22.Google Scholar

Zappavigna, M., Dwyer, P., & Martin, J. R. (2016). Consent and compliance in youth justice conferences. In Ehrlich, Eades & Ainsworth, eds., pp. 186–212.Google Scholar

Zappavigna, M., & Martin, J. R. (2018). Discourse and Diversionary Justice: An Analysis of Youth Justice Conferencing. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Zwaan, K., Muysken, P., & Verrips, M. (eds.). (2010). Language and Origin: The Role of Language in European Asylum Procedures: Linguistic and Legal Perspectives. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this element is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.